Amicus brief on Abortion Ban 2006
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
Amici are religious organizations, religiously affiliated organizations, and individual clergy, theologians, and laypersons dedicated to preserving religious freedom for all persons and, within this context, to ensuring that abortion laws protect a woman’s right to act according to her religious beliefs and conscience in this most private, personal decision. [1] The statements of interest provided by individual organizations, representatives, and individuals included in Appendix A to this brief demonstrate the varied and sometimes evolving perspectives on abortion of amici and illustrateour point that many denominations oppose undue restrictions on abortion for religious reasons that include a responsibility to protect the health of women. Indeed, respect for human life and health is a core value for many religions, including all of the religions represented by amici. A full listing of the [number] organizations and [number] individuals signing this brief as amici curiae appears in Appendix B.
Because protecting the health of women is a core expression of the religious values of amici, amici agree that all women whose health is at risk should be free to seek the safest medical treatment, without governmental coercion or constraint, in making the difficult decision whether to terminate a pregnancy. Other religious traditions and organizations also give primacy to women’s health and conscience, as we will show.
Adherence to these principles, which are based on religious beliefs, compels amici to support Respondents in this case.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
As people of faith, amici urge the Court to recognize the abundance of religious voices speaking out against the failure of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (the “Act”) to protect women’s health, and not to oversimplify the issue before it as one of morality versus immorality. Rather, amici urge the Court to heed the mandate of Casey “to define the liberty of all, not to mandate [its] own moral code.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992).
Both historically and currently, many religious organizations have given their support to abortion where necessary to protect women’s health and, in such circumstances, support a woman’s right to the method of abortion that will best protect her health. Internationally, even democracies with either a state religion or a single religious majority have abortion laws that protect women’s health. Before this Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, many Protestant, Jewish, Unitarian Universalist and other clergy and lay people felt it was a religious imperative to support legal abortion as a means of protecting women from dangerous “back alley” procedures. This religious mandate did not end with Roe. Rather, many of these religious groups and individuals continue to advocate for legislation that protects women’s health. These groups and individuals oppose the Act, not in contradiction to their religious convictions, but in deep and prayerful consultation with their faiths.
In light of this diversity of opinion within the U.S. and in the international religious community, amici urge that the Court not allow Congress to force a moral consensus where there is none, but rather to let the individual women who face the agonizing decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy or risk their own health do so legally, in consultation and accordance with their own conscience and faith.
ARGUMENT
I. HISTORICALLY, THERE HAS BEEN NO CONSENSUS AMONG RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES REGARDING REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.
It is the position of amici, a number of national religious organizations, that the history of religious conversations on the subject of governmental regulation of reproduction is both illuminating and of assistance to this Court. While it may sometimes seem as if a single religious point of view on these matters exists, a historical analysis demonstrates the complexity and multiplicity of religious thought about reproductive rights. Inquiry into two main epochs of transformation in the law of abortion—the time of criminalization efforts just after the middle of the nineteenth century, and the time around this Court’s decision to protect the right of abortion in Roe v. Wade—indicates that public religious discourse on reproductive control has been, alternatively, either notably spare or multiple and plural. Fundamentally, such an inquiry demonstrates that there simply has been no single moral consensus on the issue of reproductive freedom. And, indeed, while we as Americans may well be familiar with critiques of reproductive rights in the name of religion, it is important to recall that this country has likewise seen defense of these rights by religious institutions that have over time professed their belief in an individual’s freedom “to express and practice [her] own moral judgment on the matter of abortion.” (Cite to We Affirm).
During the nineteenth century, the medical profession spearheaded a movement to criminalize abortion. James C. Mohr, Abortion in America [pin cite] (1978); L. Tribe, Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes, 29-34 (1990). The anti-abortion stance of many medical practitioners was often grounded in offensive ideology, and specifically in the notion that the prevalence of abortion (particularly among well-to-do American women) was diminishing the native population and thereby threatening the ‘ethnic purity’ of the nation. See, e.g., Horatio R. Storer & Franklin F. Heard, Criminal Abortion: Its Nature, Its Evidence, and Its Law 47 (1868).
When some Protestant clergy, lay persons or groups did wade into the public discourse in favor of criminalizing abortion, they often invoked the same offensive ideological reasoning as did doctors. For example, the limited public opposition to abortion by Protestant clergy carried nativist undertones, and was an outgrowth of fear of population decline relative to growing Catholic communities. See, e.g., Horace Knapp, Woman’s Confidential Adviser on the Health and Diseases of Women 78-79 (1873).
Whereas there had been a dearth of religious discourse among Protestants on the subject of abortion during the time of criminalization in the 1800s, these religious organizations became increasingly vocal about the abortion issue just prior to this Court’s decision in Roe. But, it is important to note, at this time there was no straightforward or easy consensus on reproductive rights. Indeed, many Protestant religious groups (even prior to Roe and in the face of abortion’s illegality) argued for reproductive freedom. These arguments were based on at least two principles: the sanctity of the life and health of the woman in the face of dangerous and illegal abortion procedures; and the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom and the right to act according to one’s own moral judgment.
The most notable example of religious support for legal abortion came in 1967 (six years prior to this Court’s watershed decision protecting the abortion right), when twenty-one ministers and rabbis founded the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion. See Sacred Work 2; Creating Choice 6.
In the years prior to Roe, women seeking to have abortions faced substantial dangers. For example, in 1965 there were approximately two hundred abortion-related deaths. Low-income women bore a disproportionate risk. One Los Angeles public hospital, for example, had a ratio of one abortion complication admission for every fourteen deliveries in 1968; in [YEAR], Cook County Hospital in Chicago served five thousand women with abortion-related injuries. Leslie Reagan, When Abortion Was a Crime 209 (University of California Press 1997). In the face of the substantial dangers to women from illegal abortions, many clergy were motivated to act to protect women’s health and life.
The Clergy Consultation Service sought to protect women’s health by offering counseling and making abortion referrals to safe practitioners. Participating clergy expressed their concern for women’s health and life in the Service’s mission statement, which stated in part:
The present abortion laws require over a million women in the United States each year to seek illegal abortions which often cause severe mental anguish, physical suffering, and unnecessary death of women…. Belief in the sanctity of human life certainly demands helpfulness and sympathy to women in trouble …. Therefore believing as clergymen that there are higher laws and moral obligations transcending legal codes, we believe that it is our pastoral responsibility and religious duty to give aid and assistance to all women with problem pregnancies. [Append mission statement.]
Thus, by the time of Roe, a significant inversion had taken place. Earlier, a woman’s body—perceived as an object that could be regulated for the presumed benefit of the body politic—was at the center of much nineteenth-century religious discourse favoring criminalization. During the pivotal time around Roe, however, a thread of religious discourse attends to the physical suffering of women, and to the corresponding urgency of liberalizing abortion laws.
Yet these clergy were not solely driven by the desire to protect women; they also sought to act on the basis of the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom, and in the name of religious pluralism. As E. Spencer Parsons, a minister who served as Chairman of the Chicago Clergy Consultation Service on Problem Pregnancies, stated in a 1971 address:
Finally, religious groups have continued to defend reproductive decision-making in the name of religious freedom. See, e.g., We Affirm, page 3 (“To deny a Jewish woman and her family the ability to obtain a safe, legal abortion when so mandated by Jewish tradition, is to deprive Jews of their fundamental right of religious freedom….”).Physicians, social workers and clergymen should enjoy the freedom of being able to give counsel and information on matters of family health and welfare without being subject to arrest for conspiring to commit an illegal act which is morally a matter of private conscience.... [S]ince we are a people representing many diverse religious traditions, is it not the best public policy, out of respect for our different convictions on the matter, for the State to withdraw from regulating this area of human intimacy?
In sum, far from being in agreement as to the morality of abortion, members of the religious community have held diverse views on the issue historically, and a number of groups have worked to perfect reproductive freedom.
II. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS TODAY AMONG RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES THAT ABORTION REGULATIONS SHOULD NO LONGER PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE WOMAN.
Religious communities today represent a diversity of opinion as to the question currently before the court – i.e., whether an exception for the health of the woman is required for legislation criminalizing abortion procedures that many doctors believe are the safest for some women. [2] Many Protestant, Jewish, and Unitarian Universalist organizations support women’s right to make this decision in consultation with their doctors and without undue government interference; many others support abortion where necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. In fact, in recent years in the United States, these groups and individuals have actively fought against legislation – such as the Act – that fails to protect the life or health of the woman.
This plurality of religious opinion is a testament to the intensely personal nature of the decision to terminate a pregnancy. The Act, which strips women of the ability to make crucial decisions about their health and well-being in consultation with their doctors, is an undue government intrusion into a woman’s personal, religious, or moral sphere.
A. Many Religions Support A Woman’s Right To Make Her Reproductive Decisions Without Government Interference.
For many people of faith, freedom to make decisions of conscience without government interference is consistent with their deeply held religious convictions. The Central Conference of American Rabbis, for example, has reaffirmed that the “decision concerning any abortion must be made by the woman and not by the state or any other external agency.” 91st Annual Convention of the Central Conference of American Rabbis Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, June 23-26, 1980.
The Episcopal Church has, since 1967, expressed its “unequivocal” opposition to any government act that “abridges the right of a woman to reach an informed decision about the termination of pregnancy.” Reaffirm General Convention Statement on Childbirth and Abortion, Journal of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church 1994, 325 (General Convention 1995), available at http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts_new/acts_resolution-complete.pl?resolution=1994-A054.
While in 1997 the 72st General Convention of the Episcopal Church expressed “grave concern” about the use of the “intact dilation and extraction procedure” – which is only one of the procedures banned by the Act – in the third trimester of pregnancy, it made an exception for “extreme situations” and did not change its comprehensive 1994 resolution opposing “any legislative, executive or judicial action limiting decision-making on or access to abortion.” Additionally, the General Convention stated in 1994, “We therefore express our deep conviction that any proposed legislation on the part of national or state governments regarding abortions must take special care to see that the individual conscience is respected, and that the responsibility of individuals to reach informed decisions on this matter is knowledged and honored as the position of this Church.” [Cite]
Similarly, the Unitarian Universalist Association has urged the passage of federal legislation to “guarantee the fundamental right of individual choice in reproductive matters.” Unitarian Universalist Association, 1993 General Resolution, Federal Legislation for Choice.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America stated that “there can be sound reasons for ending a pregnancy through induced abortion. . . . We recognize that conscientious decisions need to be made in relation to difficult circumstances that vary greatly.” Churchwide Assembly on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Social Teaching Statement on Abortion (1991), available at http://www.elca.org/socialstatements/abortion.
Recognizing the plurality of opinion on the issue of abortion even within its own membership, the Presbyterian Church (USA) stated that, “ the decision regarding abortion must remain with the individual, to be made on the basis of conscience and personal religious principles, and free from governmental interference.” Covenant and Creation: Theological Reflections on Contraception and Abortion, Minutes of the 195th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church 369 (1983).
Additionally, this Church’s most current statement (2006 statement of the Presbyterian Church (USA) on post-viability and late-term abortion) recognizes the potential conflicts that may arise when private, moral considerations differ from public policy:
When an individual woman faces the decision whether to terminate a pregnancy, the issue is intensely personal, and may manifest itself in ways that do not reflect public rhetoric, or do not fit neatly into medical, legal, or policy guidelines. Humans are empowered by the spirit prayerfully to make significant moral choices, including the choice to continue or end a pregnancy. Human choices should not be made in a moral vacuum, but must be based on Scripture, faith, and Christian ethics. For any choice, we are accountable to God; however, even when we err, God offers to forgive us. (Source: Statement on Post-Viability and Late- Term Abortion (2003).
Even the Southern Baptist Convention, the Protestant denomination most publicly associated with an absolutist anti-abortion position, has a variety of opinion within its membership. According to theologian, ethicist, and Baptist minister Paul D. Simmons (cite: Paul D. Simmons, Religious Beliefs and Health Care Decisions (first draft). The Park Ridge Center for Health, Faith, and Ethics, 2002), The Texas Christian Life Commission, in a pamphlet entitled “Abortion and the Christian Life,” takes a moderate approach to the issue. It adopts the idea of “reverence for Life” and applies it to the most vulnerable – the poor and racial minorities – and “every life involved in a crisis pregnancy.” It would permit what is often called “therapeutic abortion,” which allows considerations regarding the physical and emotional health of the woman, pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, and fetal deformity. The pamphlet regards such terminations as “regrettable alternatives for the woman. [Cite.] In addition, the American Baptist Churches acknowledges its membership is “divided as to the proper witness of the church to the state regarding abortion,” and encourages individuals and congregations to study and address this issue. (http://www.abc-usa.org/resources/resol/abortion.htm).
The National Association of Evangelicals, which “deplores in the strongest possible terms the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court which has made it legal to terminate a pregnancy for no better reason than personal convenience or sociological considerations,” nevertheless has held a position since 1973 that states:
At the same time, we recognize the necessity for therapeutic abortions to safeguard the health or the life of the mother, as in the case of tubular pregnancies. Other pregnancies, such as those resulting from rape or incest may require deliberate termination, but the decision should be made only after there has been medical, psychological and religious counseling of the most sensitive kind.
http://www.nae.net/index.cfm.
B. Many Religions Support Abortion Where Necessary to Protect The Life Or Health Of The Woman.
Respect for human life and health is a core value for many religions, including all of the religions represented by amici. For some faiths, this value is paramount and requires that a woman be able to obtain an abortion when her health or life is at risk. For other faiths, a woman considers her health as one of several factors in making her personal decision about her pregnancy. For women of all of these faiths, restrictions on access to abortion (and, in particular, criminal statutes) that do not provide an exception for the health of the woman not only risk women’s health but threaten their religious values.
A colloquium of theologians recently wrote about the prevalence of affirmation of the sanctity of the life and health of the woman in many religious faiths:
Religious traditions have different beliefs on the value of fetal life, often according greater value as fetal development progresses. . . . However, we uphold the teaching of many religious traditions: the health and life of the woman must take precedence over the life of the fetus.
Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, An Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision (2005), available at http://www.religiousinstitute.org/Abortion_OpenLetter.pdf.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) offered another view in its official statement issued in 2006. The statement underscores the complexity of religious and moral views about abortion as individuals and denominations seek to discern God’s will and to consider the life and health of both the woman and her fetus:
In cases where problems of life or health of the mother arise in pregnancy, the church supports efforts to protect the life and health of both the mother and the baby. When late-term pregnancies must be terminated, we urge decisions intended to deliver the baby alive.
Action taken by 217th General Assembly (2006) on Item 10-01 On Late-Term Pregnancy
The United Methodist Church, recognizing the “tragic conflicts of life with life” that certain women face, has concluded that “continuance of a pregnancy which endangers the life or health of the woman, or poses other serious problems concerning the life, health, or mental capability of the child to be, is not a moral necessity. In such cases, we believe the path of mature Christian judgment may indicate the advisability of abortion.” The Book of Resolutions of the United Methodist Church 44, 129 (The United Methodist Publishing House 2004).
Speaking specifically to the intact dilation and extraction procedure (which is only one of the procedures banned by the Act), the United Methodist Church’s position states, “We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life.” Id. at 161. Thus, the United Methodist Church, while clearly concerned about the moral implications of intact dilation and extraction, supports exceptions missing from the Act. A Methodist woman faced with the harrowing decision to terminate a second-trimester pregnancy would be precluded under the Act from making this decision in accordance with her faith.
For many Jewish women, access to abortion where necessary to protect the life or health of the woman is a religious dictate. The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism stated in 1991 that
under special circumstances, Judaism chooses and requires abortion as an act which affirms and protects the life, well being and health of the mother. . . . [T]o deny a Jewish woman and her family the ability to obtain a safe, legal abortion when so mandated by Jewish tradition, is to deprive Jews of their fundamental right of religious freedom.
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism Resolution on Abortion, Passed at 1991 Biennial Convention, available at http://www.uscj.org/SocPolAbortion_Contr5481.html.
For women of faiths that encourage prayerful consideration of a woman’s health, or in fact mandate that a woman’s health be preserved, the Act’s lack of a health exception is religiously intolerable. The Act leaves no room for such women to make highly personal decisions about their health in consultation with their faith and in accordance with their religious values. Rather, the Act legislates one moral path as the path for all women.
C. Many Religious Organizations And Individuals Have Fought Against Legislation That Risks The Life Or Health Of The Woman.
Religious groups and people of faith have consistently fought against abortion legislation that threatens the life or health of the woman.
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which represents a great diversity of religious and theological organizations, institutions, and individuals, has fought vigorously at both the state and federal level to uphold Casey and ensure that abortion regulations protect the life and health of the woman. [String cite of statements/testimony.]
In 1996, seventy-one Protestant, Jewish, Unitarian Universalist, and other religious leaders signed a letter of support for President Clinton’s veto of Congressional legislation that would have banned the dilation and extraction procedure, without exception for the life or health of the woman. The letter set forth the religious leaders’ conviction
that each woman who is faced with such difficult moral decisions must be free to decide how to respond, in consultation with her doctor, her family, and God. Neither we as religious leaders, nor the president, nor the Congress – none of us – can discern God’s will as well as the woman herself, and that is where we believe the decision must remain.
Letter to President William Jefferson Clinton (Apr. 29, 1996) (on file with Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights); see also Laurie Goodstein, Religious Leaders Back Abortion Ban Veto, The Washington Post, Apr. 30, 1996, at A4 (noting close to thirty original signatories to letter).
Individual women of different faiths also stepped forward in support of President Clinton’s 1996 veto by sharing publicly their agonizing decisions, when faced with grave threats to their health and hopeless diagnoses for the children they were carrying, to undergo the D&E procedure. [Cite to press conference materials.]
Among them was Coreen Costello, who described herself and her husband as “very, very much pro-life, conservative Republicans.” Mrs. Costello learned when she was seven months pregnant that the fetus she was carrying was suffering from polyhydramnia, which also severely threatened Mrs. Costello’s health. Mrs. Costello did not want to terminate her pregnancy. As she explained, “We had one hope, and that was that we would be able to hold our daughter alive for possibly an hour, maybe two.” Eventually, however, it became clear that this hope would not be realized. Mrs. Costello explained her painful decision about her daughter:
She was dying and she would likely not survive any labor and there was no way I could deliver her. We had her baptized in utero. We named her Katherine Grace. We then realized that our only safe option was the procedure that . . . is being attempted to be outlawed.
Mary-Dorothy Line, who described herself and her husband as “practicing Catholics,” shared how she learned, nineteen weeks into her pregnancy, that the fetus she was carrying had hydrocephalus. Mrs. Line described praying with her family while they waited for a more precise diagnosis from the doctors. Ultimately, however, they learned the worst, and they had no option but to terminate the pregnancy.
This was not our choice, for not only was our son going to die, but the complications of the pregnancy put my health in danger, as well. If I carried to term, he might die in utero, and the resulting toxins could cause a hemorrhage and possibly a hysterectomy. The hydrocephaly also meant that a natural labor risked rupturing my cervix and my uterus.
In 1998, notwithstanding the efforts of these religious individuals and organizations, a bill similar to that vetoed by President Clinton in 1996 was introduced and passed in both the Senate and House of Representatives. President Clinton vetoed the 1998 bill, again citing its lack of an exception to protect the life or health of the woman. And again religious groups supported the President’s veto.
For example, the Office for Church and Society of the United Church of Christ fought to sustain President Clinton’s 1998 veto, by stating the following to the United States Senate:
Let the church and the religious community offer its advice on this issue, advice to the women facing the choice. Let the medical community offer its advice. But keep the government out of it. Protect the fundamental religious responsibility of a woman to make this decision about her own body and her own responsibility for the developing life within her. This is the overwhelming religious consensus within our church.
Rev. Dr. Jay Lintner, Statement on Partial-Birth Abortions Urging the Senate To Sustain President Clinton's Veto of H.R. 1122 (Sept. 17, 1998) (on file with Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice).
Mark J. Pelavin, Associate Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, issued a statement on September 17, 1998, on behalf of 870 congregations, 1,880 rabbis, and 1.5 million Reform Jews in support of President Clinton’s veto. The statement read, in part, “Women are capable of making moral decisions, often in consultation with their clergy, families and physicians, on whether or not to have an abortion. We believe that religious matters are best left to religious communities, not politicians.” Press Release, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Statement of Mark J. Pelavin (Sept. 17, 1998) (on file with Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice).
Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America, which represented more than 300,000 Jewish women in the United States, also issued a statement in support of President Clinton’s veto.
[T]his bill threatens the US Constitution itself. The First Amendment protects religious pluralism, a guarantee that is especially important to an American, who may observe religious practices that are different from those of her neighbors. Hadassah – the largest Jewish and largest women’s membership organization in the nation – supports each woman’s choice to make reproductive decisions within the context of her own religious convictions. We indeed subscribe to the Jewish mandate that places the health and life of a pregnant woman before the fetus.
Press Release, Hadassah The Women’s Zionist Organization of America, Inc., Largest Jewish and Largest Women’s Organization Urges Senate: Support President’s Veto of So-Called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban (Sept. 1998) (on file with Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice).
Claudia Crown Ades, a Jewish woman, shared the “spiritual journey” that started when she learned that the fetus she was carrying had the fatal chromosomal disorder Trisomy 13, and that the pregnancy posed a serious threat to her health as well. Press Release, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Statement of Claudia Crown Ades (Sept. 17, 1998) (on file with Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice). Mrs. Ades described having an “instinct” to request an ultrasound at 26 weeks, even though all signs showed that her pregnancy was advancing normally. Id. The tests revealed a tragic reality:
Our baby’s brain was filled with fluid that prevented further development. He had a seriously malformed heart with a hole between the chambers hindering normal blood flow. A giant cyst, filled with intestinal matter, formed on the outside of his chest. He had hyperteloric eyes and much, much more. Our baby stood zero chance of survival.
Id. In consultation with her doctors, her family, and God, Mrs. Ades decided to terminate her pregnancy to preserve her health and end the suffering of the fetus she was carrying. For her, it was a religious decision: “I believe that my instinct was God’s way of letting me know that my son wasn’t meant to come into this world and that he was suffering inside me and dying. God showed me a way to end his suffering.” Id.In supporting President Clinton’s veto of a bill that did not protect the life and health of the woman, Mrs. Ades cautioned that one religious voice should not drown out all others:
It pains me to hear people use God’s name in vain, quoting scripture and preaching to the world that they know what God wants, that they know what God says. . . . They talk about the sanctity of life, but they are limited only to a vision of life as we know it. I can’t tell you what God wants for other people. I can only tell you what I felt and believe God wanted for me and my son.
Id.
In 2001, Maureen Mary Britell, a Catholic woman who, before 1994, “never thought I could imagine a reason why a woman would ever have an abortion,” shared her agonizing story in a letter to members and supporters of the National Abortion Federation. In 1994, five months into her pregnancy, Mrs. Britell discovered that the fetus she was carrying suffered from the fatal anomaly anencephaly and had developed a brain stem but no brain. In order to protect Mrs. Britell’s health, the doctors recommended an induction abortion whereby Mrs. Britell’s labor would be induced and the umbilical cord cut upon delivery, thus allowing the fetus to die after delivery. Mrs. Britell wrote about how she struggled with the decision:
I am a Catholic and the idea of ending my pregnancy was beyond my imagination. I turned to my parish priest for guidance. He counseled me for a long time, and in the end, he agreed that there was nothing more I could do to help my daughter. With the support of our families and our priest, [my husband] and I made the decision to end the pregnancy.
[Cite.] Mrs. Britell’s doctors induced her labor as planned, but there were complications, and the doctors had to cut the umbilical cord while the fetus was still in the birth canal, in order to avoid serious health complications for Mrs. Britell. This “partial birth abortion” was necessary to preserve Mrs. Britell’s health, and it would be outlawed under the Act. [Cite.]
In each of these instances, religious organizations, leaders, and individuals fought against legislation which did not adequately safeguard the lives and health of women, and they did so in consultation with – and in many cases compelled by – their religious beliefs.
D. Many Religious Democracies Abroad Recognize The Importance Of Safeguarding Women’s Health.
This Court has often looked to the experiences of other nations to illuminate the nature of individual rights. See, e.g., Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 576 (2005) (citing global condemnation of capital punishment for juvenile offenders); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 573 (2003) (citing European and British law to clarify the values of Western civilization and of Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards). Of particular significance here is the fact that many democracies with either a state religion or a strong religious majority have enacted abortion laws with exceptions to protect the health of the woman.
According to a study by the United Nations of abortion law and policy, Protestant and Orthodox Christian countries overwhelmingly approve of protecting the health and life of the pregnant woman. U.N. Dep’t of Econ. & Soc. Affairs Population Div., Abortion Policies A Global Review Volume I Afghanistan to France, U.N. Doc. ST/ESA/SER.A/187, U.N. Sales No. E.01.XIII.10 (2001); U.N. Dep’t of Econ. & Soc. Affairs Population Div., Abortion Policies A Global Review Volume II Gabon to Norway, U.N. Doc. ST/ESA/SER.A/191, U.N. Sales No. E.01.XIII.18 (2001); U.N. Dep’t of Econ. & Soc. Affairs Population Div., Abortion Policies A Global Review Volume III Oman to Zimbabwe, U.N. Doc. ST/ESA/SER.A/196, U.N. Sales No. E.02.XIII.5 (2001). Available at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/ [hereinafter United Nations Study].
The law of the United Kingdom permits abortion after 24 weeks gestation to protect the health or life of the woman, or if the fetus is severely handicapped. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, 1990, c.37 (U.K.). The Church of England has stated that “there can be strictly limited conditions under which [abortion] may be morally preferable”, and Anglicans “may come to different conclusions about the proper course of action in particular cases.” The Church of England, Abortion: A Briefing Paper, (2005), available at http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/abortion.html.
Furthermore, despite the Vatican’s comprehensive ban on abortion, the majority of Catholic countries permit abortion when it is necessary to protect the health or life of the pregnant woman. [3] See, e.g., Gazz. Uff., Part I, 2 May 1978, No. 140, pp. 3642-3646 (Italy) (abortion may be performed after the first 90 days if a serious threat to the woman's physical or mental health has been diagnosed); Law No. 11179, 21 December 1984, Cód. Pen., Artículo 86 (Arg.) (although generally prohibited, abortion to prevent harm to the woman's life or health is not punishable); see generally United Nations Study; Harvard Law School, Abortion Laws of the World, Annual Review of Population Law, http://annualreview.law.harvard.edu/annual_review.htm (last visited Aug. 11, 2006).
Israel also approves of abortion on broad medical grounds, including the protection of the health or life of the woman. United Nations Study. And eleven Islamic nations (Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Morocco, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) permit abortions to protect the health or life of the pregnant woman. Id.
These countries represent a diversity of political and religious positions, but they share an ability to integrate principles of faith with a state interest in regulating abortion in such a way as to protect both the health and the life of a pregnant woman.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should affirm the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
(Among others)
Rev. Nick Carter
President, Andover Newton Theological School
[1] Amici submit this brief amici curiae with the consent of the parties. Letters providing consent of the parties are being filed with the Clerk of the Court concurrently with the filing of this brief. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, amici state that the brief in its entirety was drafted by amici curiae and their counsel. No monetary contribution toward the preparation or submission of this brief was made by any person other than amici curiae, their members, or their counsel.
